American Guns out of Control: Shouldn't the World Intervene?

Having read the Op's opinion and what is written about how the world should intervene to put pressure on the US to curb and enforce gun control. To that the following can be stated:

The US is tired of the world, we are tired of being the ones to go out while others sit back and allow for things to happen. No one in the world wants to take responsibility, and those that do are either looked at as being on the right or left of the politicial spectrum. For years the US has been there for the world, and yet despite the hatred or people who would condem us for the very rights that they seek to have, we welcome people legally into this country. We also believe in the freedom of speech, no matter how vile and horrible that speech is.

Yet here you have a person from the UK, who is thinking that they know what is good for the US. From the very country that the US has both fought with to seperate from and ultimately backed in different wars. Yet they fail to see that while they are suggesting this, for what purpose could it be for? After all is it so they can point to their biggest ally as having the same polices as they have? What good would come from such, as many people around the world tend to forget one small detail, a criminal does not follow the law, and ultimately you can not legislate human behavior. Countries have tried before and what did it get, but a large prison population or people killed.

Around this entire debate is the US Constitution, which was written in 1787, going into effect in 1789. The US had just come out of a revolution with Great Britian, the end being in 1776. The US army before that time frame was made up of every day people. The US did not have a standing Army until, 1784. And many of the representatives were not sure on how that would work, and in their wisdom believed, rightly so, that in the event that there is a war on the country, it would be the militias, that made up of every day people, would be called on to defend it.

But, beyond history and the law, there is one thing that many people dance around. The violence with guns, what many are not wanting to admit, is that it is not the military hardware that is where the crime is comitted with, but it is with a handgun. Seems as though politicians, who call for gun control, are cherry picking the statistics. And like most in this debate they will only give you what they believe will give them the best chance to win the debate.

But back to the article and the op, and a word of warning. Chose your battles wisely, cause the question ultimatley will end up one day be asked who needs who more, and what would be the end result? What would happen if the UK and the world does succeed in isolating the USA? Something tells me that it would end up being bad for all, as the people of the USa are moving toward a more isolationist mindset, and would not mind not being bothered with the problems of the world, and closing the country to all others. Could say the UK or any other ally of the US be able to stand up on their own, in both military and trade?

reply to post by Bassago


Will the UN intevene in Mexico's drug wars? The Horn of Africa? In many other places in the world, too? Or is it just the U.S.?

U.S. intervening in other countries bad... Other countries intervening here good? Really. Bit of a double standard there...

Members of the international committee throw around suggestions of "intervention" to disarm Americans within the United States. Immediately followed by The Secretary of State signing the UN arms ban, but the Senate has assured of this is going nowhere. I seem to remember the "Affordable Care Act" Obamacare (whichever you find less offensive) was dead on arrival. Anyone else sense a trend?

American gun use is out of control. Shouldn't the world intervene?
www.theguardian.com... n-gun-out-control-porter

Henry Porter
The Observer, Saturday 21 September 2013 17.12 EDT

But what if we no longer thought of this as just a problem for America and, instead, viewed it as an international humanitarian crisis – a quasi civil war, if you like, that calls for outside intervention? As citizens of the world, perhaps we should demand an end to the unimaginable suffering of victims and their families – the maiming and killing of children – just as America does in every new civil conflict around the globe.

But no nation sees itself as outsiders do. Half the country is sane and rational while the other half simply doesn't grasp the inconsistencies and historic lunacy of its position, which springs from the second amendment right to keep and bear arms, and is derived from English common law and our 1689 Bill of Rights. We dispensed with these rights long ago, but American gun owners cleave to them with the tenacity that previous generations fought to continue slavery.

New Yorkers understand that fear breeds peril and, regardless of tragedies such as Sandy Hook and the DC naval yard, the NRA, the gun manufacturers, conservative-inclined politicians and parts of the media will continue to advocate a right, which, at base, is as archaic as a witch trial.

he same resignation was evident in President Obama's rather lifeless reaction to the Washington shooting last week. There is absolutely nothing he can do, which underscores the fact that America is in a jam and that international pressure may be one way of reducing the slaughter over the next generation. This has reached the point where it has ceased to be a domestic issue. The world cannot stand idly by.

With all do respect Mr. Porter mind your own damn business. I think its rich that a Brit (of which I take no issue) would suggest a veiled foreign invasion of the United States to accomplish what his ancestors could not. Have to appreciate the creativity.

Kerry signs UN arms treaty, senators threaten to block it
www.foxnews.com... erry-signs-un-arms-treaty-senators-threaten-to-block-it/

Secretary of State John Kerry on Wednesday signed a controversial U.N. treaty on arms regulation, riling U.S. lawmakers who vow the Senate will not ratify the agreement. As he signed the document, Kerry called the treaty a "significant step" in addressing illegal gun sales, while claiming it would also protect gun rights.

No doublespeak here

"This is about keeping weapons out of the hands of terrorists and rogue actors.

Terrorists like Constitutionalist, 2nd amendment activists, returning Iraq veterans - you know scum of the Earth types. Hey the Govt; calls them out then sends out their minions to deal with them - they dont get to have it both ways.

U.S. lawmakers, though, have long claimed the treaty could lead to new gun control measures. They note the U.S. Senate has final say on whether to approve the agreement.

Senate website gets 2nd Amendment wrong, critics say
www.foxnews.com... -website-gets-2nd-amendment-wrong-critics-say/

Does the Second Amendment guarantee an individual right to own guns? The Supreme Court has ruled that it does. But you might be confused if you visit the official Senate web page on the Constitution, which says only: "Whether this provision protects the individual's right to own firearms or whether it deals only with the collective right of the people to arm and maintain a militia has long been debated."

Yeah - were screwed!

seagull
reply to post by Bassago

 

Will the UN intevene in Mexico's drug wars? The Horn of Africa? In many other places in the world, too? Or is it just the U.S.?

U.S. intervening in other countries bad... Other countries intervening here good? Really. Bit of a double standard there...

Nah they won't for fear of interrupting the CIA's ongoing business deals, too dangerous.

Yeah to the second line. This was just another pot shot for an EU globalist pumping out a little anti 2nd amendment propaganda through the Guardian. Like I said earlier it was Der Speigel last week so the Brits must be up now.

Maybe we could all bet on who publishes the next article. My vote is Switzerland (cause their still mad about the banking stuff.)

if they do try though, their morale will be broken, their supplies stolen, and their corpses filling sandbags for mg nests. the us army couldn't even take over a country the size of montana.

Wow, I havent read such drivel in a long time; If the international community feels this way I welcome them to float their happy butts across the pond and bring a healthy supply of body bags. Fortunately the authors responsible for this absurd notion have no real shot of this becaue this would without a doubt cause a new world war on a scale that has yet to be seen.

What really gets me about these pieces - whichever Nation-State decides to write about it "this week" - is that they keep talking about American gun culture. Or violence in culture.

You know what? Every fraggin' one of you with a press and economy to stand on IS THE SAME CULTURE. Yep. Try to deny it. Haves and have nots, police militarization, fetish, violence, cutting, drinking, rape, racism, etc. etc.

And when the "Red Necks" are sent off to war to fight for YOUR resource security (yes my dear French friends, we fight for YOUR oil security too in exchange for market access) - you have no issues with that.

So if y'all want to do something helpful - help us with mental healthcare, free trade, economic mobility, and things that actually matter. Let go of the guns red herring you red coat. ;-)

-Mags

reply to post by Bassago

you see this is the problem with the whole world,they don't know how to mind their oown buisness.Including my own country.international community my ars.I myself don't go in for this world community world family bs.We each have our own nations we live in,our own laws,and our own traditions,One nation should not try to interfere in another nations buisness,but for some reason,everyone wants to medle in anothers affairs,including and at the top is my own country,we don't need an international community,we need to mind our own buisness,and our own affairs.I myself don't care what happens around the world,and it is because I don't go to any place but my own country.any occupation of one nation into another is an act of war and agression.the whole world needs to mind it's own buisness,get off this one big community bs and stop calling sovering nations states.this one world gov,one world economy,one world court is bs.evil priks trying to run the entire world need to be stopped,there is no other way.leave each nation to it's own,the language used today in the world is madness,we don't need no stinkin world community.

Insurrection

So if y'all want to do something helpful - help us with mental healthcare, free trade, economic mobility, and things that actually matter. Let go of the guns red herring you red coat. ;-)

-Mags

Now this is an international (reverse) foreign policy I can get behind. The US has been alone at the top so to speak for a while now. Seems like we have forgotten how to ask our allies for help in the areas where we really need it.

Not to go OT here but an example wold be Obamacare. Sure the UK model may not be perfect but I have a bad feeling ACA will be much worse. Why couldn't the "world" offer to help with that?

Send them - I dare them to come! "From behind every blade of grass". They had better make sure to pack a body bag into every soldier's duffel. They're going to need them!

They'd have to come and take 'em, and we all know they ain't got the grit for that.


Cool Fantasy.

Lysergic
They'd have to come and take 'em, and we all know they ain't got the grit for that.

Cool Fantasy.

edit on 26-9-2013 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)

Considering the size of the US and all the wilderness areas it might be more like "Come and find them."

Can just picture a bunch of blue helmets wandering around the National Parks saying "Jeez this place is huge."

reply to post by greencmp


If your passion for freedom of speech was as great as your passion for guns you would have great nation...

kozmo
Send them - I dare them to come! "From behind every blade of grass". They had better make sure to pack a body bag into every soldier's duffel. They're going to need them!

It amazes me that you think like that. Do you really think guns are going to save you from a military force. If they want your guns they will take them and if you resisted you would be killed. The fire power does not tally. Do you think if every man, women and child in waco was armed that would have saved them...

reply to post by dellmonty

we don't need no stinkin world community.

Like it or not bud we live in a global community. ATS is global community. If you do not need a world community why are you even here on ATS.
How well do you think you nation would fair if you did not have a cheap over seas work force to make things for you. How well would you fair without the produce from other countries that are not available in your own.
We do live in a global community and the world gets a bit smaller every day. When the Pacific Ocean boils into a radioactive soup you might begin to understand that we have an affect each other.

Lysergic
They'd have to come and take 'em, and we all know they ain't got the grit for that.


Cool Fantasy.

edit on 26-9-2013 by Lysergic because: (no reason given)

The US has just been robbed blind by the banking elite. Your family will be paying the debt back for generations to come. They had the grit to do that and you have done nothing.

My guess is if they came and took them I doubt you would do a dang thing about it. Thats the truth of it.

purplemer
reply to post by greencmp

 

If your passion for freedom of speech was as great as your passion for guns you would have great nation...

Who says it isnt? Freedom is freedom is freedom for all things and all people. Picking and choosing freedoms is part of the politicians game and not representative of a nation of people as a whole. Hell, no person or people are representative of every other person or people anywhere on this planet. Even in the darkest depths of the Klan there exist differing opinions.

reply to post by purplemer


Besides being locked in and set on fire the people at Waco lacked the will to fight. Most people do.
Even disarmed tribes are formidable opponents where the will exists. Americans for the most part dont want to fight. Otherwise those ATF agents would have been easilly defeated.

They are outnumbered nation-wide over 1,000 to 1 and unless they are willing to nuke cities they would eventually lose.

reply to post by SasquatchHunter

Exactly! As soon as we pulled our resources how many of these countries would be invaded the next day?
How many nations would go bankrupt the next day? This is just laughable.

I hope you are having a giraffe... What resources are you talking about. The US is broke. The US makes it money on the petro dollar and by exploiting nations through World Trade agreements. Contary to what you may think the world would actually be better off without the US. 5% of the worlds population using some 20% of the worlds resources..The Western world lives off the back of the poorer nations and you think they would go bankrupt...